[yang-doctors] Fwd: IETF YANG model for TCP?

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Fri, 05 April 2019 09:51 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40296120086 for <yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 02:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 624cY7chZZgJ for <yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 02:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D130C120045 for <yang-doctors@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 02:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6541; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1554457858; x=1555667458; h=subject:references:to:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=Jezh8Y92/lf0Y7MjkE+38Yh5gOQ5nG9VJgcw8tZFnbA=; b=PfNnLqOEAgZ/cmgf7HPxNDbZNCxFHj8tblj8vUMNPPNJY67L8Gta8pc/ Cs2LKUTbUBNJ1TOUOj7DI3xWdx9nW40Qnglywu2B3oMJJQpWm5spH+Qtw uDYAWsjZu+Vlnuk15srQ87bNto11HVLgGdoD9RnWTVlvy5p/Em+62Dg4F 8=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.60,312,1549929600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="11140161"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 05 Apr 2019 09:50:55 +0000
Received: from [10.55.221.36] (ams-bclaise-nitro3.cisco.com [10.55.221.36]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x359ot4O005515; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 09:50:55 GMT
References: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D282068@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
To: "ietf-interest(mailer list)" <ietf-interest@cisco.com>, YANG Doctors <yang-doctors@ietf.org>
Cc: "Amrit Hanspal (ahanspal)" <ahanspal@cisco.com>, "Robert Grasby (rgrasby)" <rgrasby@cisco.com>, "Gerard Sheehan (gsheehan)" <gsheehan@cisco.com>, "cs-yang(mailer list)" <cs-yang@cisco.com>, "Einar Nilsen-Nygaard (einarnn)" <einarnn@cisco.com>, "Peter Van Horne (petervh)" <petervh@cisco.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D282068@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
Message-ID: <f104c494-0155-c164-dc7c-eef12a9a1410@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2019 11:50:55 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D282068@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------7AFEF20281D0BB614E7877C3"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, OOF, AutoReply
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.55.221.36, ams-bclaise-nitro3.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/8ToL1oO3K4HsN-b9hqeEWnlrWnk>
Subject: [yang-doctors] Fwd: IETF YANG model for TCP?
X-BeenThere: yang-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email list of the yang-doctors directorate <yang-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/yang-doctors/>
List-Post: <mailto:yang-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2019 09:51:00 -0000

Hi,

Someone has a use case for a TCP YANG module and is interested to 
collaborate with Michael?
Or maybe we have someone similar internally.
If interested, I can make the introduction.

Regards, Benoit


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	IETF YANG model for TCP?
Date: 	Tue, 26 Mar 2019 09:49:55 +0000
From: 	Scharf, Michael <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>;
To: 	Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>;



Hi Benoit,
I am reaching out to gauge interest in an IETF YANG model for TCP. While 
there are YANG models for many protocols, there is apparently no IETF 
YANG modeling work for TCP. For instance, an IETF TCP YANG model could 
be useful for network elements that implement TCP in the control plane 
or in the management plane.

An IETF YANG model for TCP would probably be homed in the TCPM working 
group, albeit TCPM has little experience in data models. Nonetheless, as 
a chair of TCPM, I believe it would be useful to discuss among TCP 
implementers whether an IETF TCP YANG model would make sense, and 
whether a vendor-neutral model would be doable. Both are open questions 
and it is possible that the answer is "no" (and "no" is actually my 
default answer).

If you are aware of persons (e.g., in Cisco) that may be interested in 
discussing these questions, please feel free to forward this e-mail. 
Please also feel free just to delete this e-mail.

I have submitted a small I-D to trigger a discussion in TCPM 
(https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-scharf-tcpm-yang-tcp-01.txt, presentation 
slide can be found at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/slides-104-tcpm-transmission-control-protocol-tcp-yang-model-00). 
As a TCP-MIB exists (RFC 4022), the document currently uses a YANG model 
auto-converted from the TCP-MIB as a starting point, albeit this has 
issues and updates would obviously be needed. As explained in the 
document, the scope of a model would need to be discussed, as well as 
many other questions.

The TCPM working group will only consider a document if there is 
significant support from major implementers, e.g., by reviewing or 
co-authoring the document. Any thoughts or feedback would be welcome.

Thanks a lot!

Michael

.